We
hear a lot about women's "reproductive rights." In fact, some leftist
politicians - Barbara Boxer comes to mind - seem to be able to segue
from any conceivable topic to a discussion of them with aplomb. But
do men have reproductive rights too?

Answering
in the affirmative, a men's group is filing a lawsuit to win those
very rights. According to CNN.com,

The
National Center for Men [NCM] has prepared a lawsuit - nicknamed
Roe v. Wade for Men - to be filed Thursday [3/16] in U.S. District
Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer
ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter .
. .

.
. . The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among
abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended
pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities
of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even
if they lose.

Let's
start the discussion.

The
relevant principle here involves authority and responsibility, two
things that are inextricably linked. With authority comes responsibility,
and with responsibility must come authority. For instance, we don't
accord minors the authority of adults - they mayn't vote, buy alcohol
or tobacco products, join the military, etc. - but we also don't ascribe
to them the same level of responsibility. This is why children are
punished less harshly for committing crimes.

It
should be obvious why authority and responsibility go hand in hand.
If a minor is under your care, you act in loco parentis and have authority
over him. If he then plays with matches and burns down the neighbor's
house, you are responsible. On the other hand, he wouldn't be held
responsible if you burned down the house because he has no authority
over you.

The
problem with our laws governing abortion and parental rights is that
they rob a man of all authority over the fate of his unborn child
but assign him fifty-percent of the responsibility for that child
should the woman, exercising her total authority in the matter,
decide to bring the child to term.

It's
for this reason that the NCM intends to argue its case based on the
equal protection clause of the Constitution. And it's understandable.
We live in a society that is obsessed with equality, and our government
zealously enforces onerous regulations and mandates and imposes a
radical-egalitarian model on all of us (i.e., Title IX dictates, the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, etc.). Despite this, inequality
is not only tolerated but prescribed when it redounds to the detriment
of men and the benefit of women. And this is a perfect example: woman+conception+100%
authority=50% responsibility. But what about man+conception+0% authority?
Well, you won't see this on the SATs, but the answer is still 50%
responsibility. It's amazing how placing a man in an equation completely
alters the answer. It's the New Chivalry at work.

Not
that there's a realistic expectation that NCM will be able to prevail
upon the court with this line of reasoning. Said Matt Dubay, the plaintiff
in the case,

"What
I expect to hear [from the court] is that the way things are is not
really fair, but that's the way it is."

Yes,
fairness has nothing to do with it. Why does the equality-for-me-but-not-for-thee,
feminist-powered abortion lobby and its sympathizers in government
prescribe such a double standard?

Because
they can.

But
abortion and fairness never had the same address. The truly fair thing
would be to abolish abortion and afford the unborn their right to
life. This creates a problem of practicality, however, one that a
libertine society finds unacceptable: how can you then indulge lustful
desires while avoiding the responsibilities that attend bringing a
human being into this world, a sometimes unavoidable unintended consequence?

So,
we stripped unborn children, who can't vote, complain, lobby or donate
money, of their right to life and gave the right to kill to those
who just happen to be walking about, who can vote, complain, lobby
and donate money. But then we found that this created another problem
of practicality: who specifically will have that power over life and
death, the mother and the father? Well, as C.S. Lewis said, "You can't
have a democracy of two because the votes cancel each other out. Someone
must cast the deciding ballot."

So
you grant the power based on the preferences of those who vote, complain,
lobby and donate money the most.

And
we salve our consciences and numb our intellects with the fanciful.
We not only rationalize that a baby is merely part of a woman's body
before birth but a person immediately afterwards, but also that he
has no kinship with the father before birth but a very definite one
afterwards. That is, unless the mother decides she wants the child,
then, somehow, some way the "it" within is magically transformed into
both a human being and the father's progeny.

So,
believing that free lust is a moral right, we see the choice between
chastity and unwanted pregnancies as a dilemma. Then, forgetting that
someone's right to life trumps your right to convenience, we are unfair
to the unborn. But this creates another dilemma, prompting us to be
unfair to the fathers of the unborn, who now have no say in whether
their children will be murdered before seeing the light of day. Ah,
what a tangled web we weave . . . .

And
the only ones we deceive are ourselves.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

I
know many will warn that absolving men of responsibility in unplanned
pregnancies will encourage abortion, but on balance this may not be
so. Just as the best way to eliminate an unjust law is to enforce
it, the best way to eliminate the exercise of flawed principles is
to force their proponents to live with their implications. The NCM
lawsuit is a step in that direction.

But
getting back to the matter of authority and who shall cast that fateful
deciding ballot, there is a third party who would, if possible, most
assuredly weigh in: the unborn baby. And as to this grave matter,
one of life or death, which way do you think the little one would
vote?

Selwyn Duke lives in Westchester County, New
York. He's a tennis professional, internet entrepreneur and writer whose
works have appeared on various sites on the Internet, including Intellectual
Conservative, nenewamerica.us (Alan Keyes) and Mensnet. Selwyn has traveled
extensively in his life, visiting exotic locales such as India, Morocco
and Algeria and quite a number of other countries while playing the international
tennis circuit.